USA (Europe Brief Newspaper): A U.S. appeals court ruled Trump can temporarily remove a Democrat from the federal labor board as his administration contests a ruling that reversed her firing.
The lower court ruling was halted pending the appeal by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which stated that a law that protected Federal Labor Relations Authority members from being fired at will probably went against Trump’s extensive authority to manage the executive branch.
What legal arguments supported the court’s decision to allow Trump’s removal of the FLRA member?
The lower court’s decision to reinstate the Democratic FLRA chair was temporarily overturned by the appeals court, which granted an administrative stay. As is customary during appeals, Trump is able to keep the member out of office while the legal challenge is pending thanks to this stay.
The Trump administration contended that the statutory safeguards that restrict the President’s power to dismiss FLRA members—which include notice, hearing, and proof of incompetence, duty negligence, or misconduct—are unconstitutional. They argue that these limitations violate the President’s Article II executive authority, particularly for agencies that have important executive responsibilities.
In recent years, the Supreme Court and lower courts have indicated that they are willing to review or restrict cases such as Humphrey’s Executor, which have traditionally supported removal protections for employees of independent, multi member agencies.
